The United States has basic principles in its foundation, and by turning our backs on these Syrian refugees we are going against what America stands for: equal opportunities for everyone, even if they come from a different country.

Now, I'm going to cut this short to hear my opponents basic views on this issue and I will get to most of my points in the next round.

I would also like to ask that my opponent knows a lot about the issue, as I would like this to be a fair and lively debate.

Because I just debated this same topic in a longer form, I'll pick this one up.

To deny that there isn't a security threat posed by the Syrian refugee influx is ludicrous. There is no real way to vet every single one of the refugees. This leaves a clear loophole for terrorists to take and land in our back yards, ready to kill our friends and families. There are other solutions for the refugee issue that do not put our necks in the guillotine.

As mentioned by the con speaker, there is a clear security threat posed by the Syrian refugees and this is simply false. These refugees are coming to America to escape ISIS. These refugees are innocent people and to say that any of them are a threat to the U.S. absolutely disgusts me. (When I say this, I'd like to make it clear that I am in no way insulting my opponent or attacking him in any way). Out of the thousands of Syrian refugees the U.S. has accepted so far, there has not been a single attack in the U.S. done by any of them.
Then there is the concern of the Paris attack. Yes, there are a lot of concerns about the safety of the American citizens after there was a problem with security in Paris, but the security in Paris is much different than that of the U.S. In Europe, those entering are fingerprinted and then are allowed to go to the mainland even if they don't have their identification documents, and they are then transferred through European countries to get to countries that will accept them. While doing so, these refugees do not even need a passport to go through these countries. Not only is there a difference in security, but compared to other groups, the Syrians are the most vetted group going to the U.S.
Let me give you an idea of how hard it would be for a member of ISIS to get into the U.S. by going with the rest of the Syrian refugees.
1. A member of ISIS would have to go to a refugee camp with four million other Syrian refugees in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey
2. Out of those 4 million people, this ISIS member would have to be one of only 23,000 other refugees to be even considered to be flown to the U.S.
3. This member would then have to be part of only 10,000 people that will be admitted into the U.S. within next year of those 23,000
4. Of those 10,000 people, the U.S. State Department has concluded that only 2% of them are considered "military aged males", with the rest being women, children, elderly, and the sick.

Therefore, the chances of any of the Syrian refugees being a member of ISIS is extremely low.
I'd also like to remind everyone that these people are not chosen randomly, as they are put through an extensive amount of background checks (which I can go into more depth in the next round.)

There is no need for you to explain the vetting process because that is what I am going to do.

Currently there is no way to ensure that we would be safe if there were terrorists in the lot of refugees. It would be impossible to predict who is and who isn't a terrorist. This has been reiterated by plenty, including FBI director James Comey, who has said that "we can only query against that which we have collected and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them." Being that Syria is a literal intelligence hell hole, it would be impossible to vet these people.

So what would the vetting process come down to if we have no real information on the people we are trying to bring into our country? It would come down to a series of weak testing. As Time magazine describes in the article I'll link at the end, the refugees would be interviewed and their information will be run through criminal databases. But if they never made a "ripple in the pond in Syria," there will be no information to verify that they are genuine asylum seekers and not terrorists.

For these reasons, a satisfactory vetting process is not possible. The process is inherently flawed from the beginning. Because of this, terrorists would be able to come into our country through the refugee process.

I must admit that the chances of a terrorist coming into our nation through this method is slim for the reason that there are many methods that would be simply easier for them. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take measures to close this hole. When our friends and families are at risk, there are few methods that are inappropriate that ensure their safety.

Also, denying the refugees entry into our nation does not have to be a cruel act as you are making it out to be. There are measure that we can take that can guarantee both their humanity and our security. For example, the United States can set up a safe zone in Syria. Doing this, we would be able to more efficiently care for a greater number of refugees. We could ensure that they are being taken care of in a safe environment, free from the government bombings and ISIS genocide. At the same time, our government can do their duty and ensure the safety and security of each and every one of its citizens, its paramount duty.

The con speaker brought up the idea of putting the refugees in safe zones in Syria rather than sending them to the U.S. But who says that these refugees will be any safer there than they would here in the U.S.? The speaker claimed that denying refugees doesn't have to be as cruel as I'm making it to be, but the same could be said about his idea of safe zones in the sense that he is exaggerating the safeness of them. How would we be able to ensure that they are safe or that no ISIS members would attempt to sneak in there? If what he claims is true, and there is no satisfactory vetting system, how would these refugees be any more safe than they would in the U.S.? This idea wouldn't even ensure the safety of our own people, as there are many other ways for an ISIS member to get in the country, according to my opponent. But, going back to the well being of the Syrian refugees, they are, in fact, in more danger in the "safe zones" than they would be in the U.S. How would any members of ISIS not be able to access the safe zones easier than they could access the U.S. when the safe zones are in the same country?! And finally, why would these safe zones placed in Syria keep these refugees safe when the speaker himself said that Syria is a "literal intelligence hell hole"? As you can see, there are numerous problems with setting up a safe zone in the same country as the terrorist group. But, will the American people be safe from ISIS if we stop letting in refugees? As far as I'm concerned, the complete safety of the American people will never be ensured as long as ISIS still remains at large.

Finally, I'd like to bring up my final point today, which I believe is the most important point I have.
We can sit here debating whether we think we should let in Syrian refugees in the U.S. or not all day, but in the end, it's not up to anybody except for the federal government. Why is that so?

According to America's most well known and important document, the Constitution, in matters such as this, it is the federal government's decision. Let me be more specific. According to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, "federal laws trump state laws, except for matters constitutionally left to the states." However there are no matters in the constitution left to the states concerning immigration. So what's the federal law that states must comply with? According to the Refugee Act of 1980, the President has the power to admit refugees into the U.S. especially if an "unforeseen emergency refugee situation" exists, which one currently does. Furthermore, President Obama has made it very clear to accept all Syrian refugees into the United States.

Would the safe zones 100% guarantee the safety of the Syrian refugees? Absolutely not however the risk would be greatly mitigated by the NATO or UN military force that would secure the area. But in the end, here is my point: the chief concern of the United States government should be the safety of the American people. This means eliminating risks as they present themselves. Could be still be attacked from other avenues? Once again, of course we can. However, this is a debate solely concerning the refugee threat, not all of the other threats that Islamic Terrorism presents us. There are many roads we could take to help guarantee our safety however today we are only discussing a single one. This is also not a debate of whether or not the President "could" bring the refugees into the nation. That has been long established. The debate is over whether we "should" bring the refugees in.

Overall, there is a lot of emotion involved in this issue. We should not blind ourselves to the facts just so we can have a good feeling at the end of the day. The admittance of refugees presents an unarguable threat to the citizens of the United States that stems from a flawed and inherently ineffectual vetting process. It would be dangerous to everyone that we love to let them in. We have many steps to take to ensure our safety from threats abroad. Keeping these people out is a good place to start.

I look forward to that day. I'm very new to the site and will be active in voting in other debates when I can. As for getting directed to more votes, I'm willing to navigate alone. I wish to have everyone else's experience of initially struggling. Thank you very much.

Then what you're opposed to is the standards themselves. They're applied regardless of whether or not there is another vote on the debate, and while I respect the fact that you'd rather have had a bad vote on this debate than none at all, I'm not so sure your opponent would agree. There's plenty of room for discussion of quality vs quantity when it comes to voting, and you're hardly alone in your concerns and preferences on this issue. The day may come where the system changes to better reflect views like yours, but that day is not today. There are opportunities on the site for people to get more votes on their debates, and I can direct you to those for future reference if you wish.

Was it the strongest vote? Perhaps not. I disagree because it was a vote. Unfortunately, there aren't many of those. I think there should have been some sort of deciding factor to decide who won, lost, or if the tie was deserved. Even if the vote was not up to par, it would be more satisfying method of determining the outcome of the debate than the clock.

You're welcome to disagree, but just because you wanted those points doesn't mean that the vote was sufficient. If you feel that it met the standards, I'd be interested to see why you think that's the case.

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I vote con for 2 reasons. First, Pro makes this claim that the screening process would be hard for a terrorist to slip in, but this claim is very weakly developed and personally I don't buy it. Ths leads into the second reason that only the Con has offense. The affirmative is left playing defense the entire time and offense is needed to win a debate.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than say that Con "has offense," and must directly assess specific points made by Con.
************************************************************************